Energy companies can be held legally liable for damages caused by climate change

What's this about?

People disagree about whether energy firms can legally pay for harm from climate change.

The answer may change with the claim, the court, and the money people seek.

What supporters say

• Climate science can link some energy firms to certain heat waves and money losses.
• Some state courts have let climate cases continue instead of ending them early.
• A tobacco case may help people who show that firms lied about climate risks.
• Opioid cases show that courts can handle harm spread across many people and places.

What critics say

• Science may link firms to harm, but it does not prove a legal duty or the amount owed.
• Climate harm comes from many sources, so its cause looks less clear than tobacco or opioids.
• Social media shows that experts still face doubt when they study harm across whole groups.
• Opioid deals give only limited help for climate cases, especially when courts must set damages.

How to read this

The number of points does not show who is right; the strength of the proof matters more.

The bottom line

Energy firms may face climate lawsuits, especially in state courts or for false claims.

But the evidence does not yet settle whether courts will make them pay for broad climate damage.

The claim that energy companies can be held legally liable for climate-change damages is legally possible, but far from settled. The answer depends heavily on the type of claim, the jurisdiction and the remedy being sought.

The case for

The strongest evidence that climate lawsuits can move forward comes from state courts. In *County Commissioners of Boulder County v. Suncor Energy*, the Colorado Supreme Court allowed Boulder’s state-law claims against Exxon and Suncor to pass the dismissal stage. The ruling did not establish that the companies were liable or that damages were owed, but it showed that federal barriers do not automatically block every state climate case. Future proceedings must still resolve duty, causation, defenses and the amount of any loss. 4

Attribution science has also become more specific. Research has strengthened the evidence that human activity contributed to certain extreme events. Other studies have combined companies’ emissions records with climate and economic models to estimate individual producers’ contributions to heatwaves and financial losses. These estimates do not show that one company caused an event alone, but they could support proportional or contribution-based claims where the law permits them. (see Figure 2) 2

Another possible route focuses on deception rather than ordinary fossil-fuel production. In *United States v. Philip Morris*, a court found that tobacco companies had coordinated misleading statements about smoking risks, addiction and “light” cigarettes, and imposed liability under RICO. That precedent may help plaintiffs who can show deceptive climate communications, reliance or market effects, and a clear connection to particular losses. It is much weaker support for holding companies responsible for all damage linked to their emissions. 1

The opioid cases offer a further, though limited, comparison. More than 3,000 state and local governments pursued claims against manufacturers, distributors and others, leading to major settlements. Those cases show that litigation can create pressure when many companies contribute to a widespread harm. They do not, however, provide a ready formula for dividing global climate damages among energy companies. 3

The case against

The central problem is that scientific contribution is not the same as legal responsibility. Courts generally require a recognized duty, wrongful conduct, proximate cause, a legally valid injury and a workable remedy. A company’s estimated share of emissions may leave unanswered whether its conduct was legally wrongful, whether other actors interrupted the causal chain and how responsibility should be divided. 7

Climate causation is also more diffuse than the pathways usually seen in tobacco or opioid cases. Tobacco claims often involve an identifiable product and exposure, while climate harms result from emissions by many companies, governments, consumers and industries, combined through atmospheric processes, natural variability and later events. Even a reliable estimate of one producer’s contribution may not prove that the company legally caused a particular loss. 6

The Supreme Court’s decision in *American Electric Power* narrowed one major route to liability. The Court held that federal common-law nuisance claims seeking judicial regulation of greenhouse-gas emissions were displaced by the Clean Air Act. The decision did not eliminate state-law, deception or statutory claims, but it means plaintiffs cannot rely on a broad federal nuisance theory to supply the legal basis for damages. 5

Other cases show the difficulty of obtaining a concrete remedy. In the Shell litigation, the Hague Court of Appeal overturned a trial court’s specific emissions-reduction order in 2024. That illustrates the gap between recognizing that a company has climate responsibilities and issuing an enforceable order—or awarding damages. Opioid settlements likewise show litigation leverage, but they are mostly negotiated agreements, not judicial decisions allocating all epidemic costs among every contributing actor. 8

Population-level evidence can also be insufficient by itself. Research linking social-media use to adolescent health outcomes, for example, has reported associations while also identifying confounding factors, reverse causation and varying exposure patterns. The comparison does not challenge climate science; it illustrates why broad population evidence alone may not prove that a particular defendant caused a particular injury. 9

The bottom line

The evidence favours the narrower claim that some climate cases may proceed, but only moderately supports the broader claim that energy companies can routinely be ordered to pay climate damages. The strongest cases are likely to involve specific alleged misconduct—such as deceptive risk communications, misleading advertising, failure to warn or violation of a climate statute—rather than fossil-fuel production alone.

Overall, the legal answer is highly dependent on the claim, jurisdiction and remedy. There is stronger evidence that courts may hear certain state-law or deception-based cases than that they will ultimately award damages. The unresolved question is how courts will translate probabilistic, contribution-based climate science into a defendant-specific duty, proximate cause, apportionment and a legally available damages remedy.